backtop

Science NASA Unveils Mars Mission Plans
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - November 30, 2007 10:00 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 102 comment(s) - last by dickeywang.. on Dec 3 at 2:59 AM
NASA has its sights set on Mars

Is it possible to send man to Mars?  During the NASA Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group meeting, NASA space officials unveiled a small number of details of future plans for a manned mission to Mars.  

NASA hopes to be able to deploy a "minimal" crew to the Red Planet on a spacecraft that weights 880,000lbs.  The 30-month round trip would ideally take place as early as February 2031, though funding a project could range anywhere from $20 billion up to a massive $450 billion.

Not surprisingly, details regarding manned Moon missions could change at any time - and likely will.  The six-month one-way trip would use a "closed-loop" system with the ability to recycle and reuse air and water aboard the craft.  The crew would also eat plants that are growing on the spaceship.

NASA plans to send at least one type of vehicle and surface habitat before the astronauts arrive on the Red Planet.  Once the astronauts arrive, nuclear energy would help them stay up to 16 months on the Martian surface before a return trip back to Earth.

Even though NASA and other nations have big plans for Mars, a number of major hurdles must be dealt with before a manned mission can be launched.  Along with creating proper technology to ensure astronauts are protected from dangerous levels of cosmic radiation, a new generation of medical space equipment will need to be created in case a medical emergency takes place.  

As space nations continue promising research geared towards the moon, many space observers believe the moon is just a stepping stone for future missions to the Red Planet.  NASA will likely use manned moon missions as a testing ground for technologies that can be used later on Mars.  NASA already is conducting a number of research projects on Mars including the impressive Mars Rovers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mars is a waste
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 10:33:19 AM , Rating: 5
At the present time, creating a full-scale, permanent moon base should be our top priority. The moon is the key to commercial exploitation of space. Mars is only valuable from a research perspective, whereas the moon offers us that, plus massive quantities of new resources (some of which aren't even found on Earth), plus 24-hour-a-day solar power, unfiltered by atmosphere, limitless quantities of free vacuum (invaluable for many industrial processes), and a gravitational field tailor-made for building large structures and moving massive objects. The moon is close enough to make shipping to Earth trivial (a rail gun on the lunar surface can launch to Earth for pennies a pound). Lightspeed delay from the moon is low enough that remote robotic control in realtime is feasible, whereas 8-40 minute roundtrip delay from Mars makes even the simplest remote control tasks take days.

Additionally, once we have minimal manufacturing capability on the moon, the cost of a mission to Mars drops dramatically, even if we do nothing but manufacture the fuel for the mission there.

A moon base is the first step towards exploitation and colonization of the entire solar system. A trip to Mars is just...a trip to Mars.




RE: Mars is a waste
By dickeywang on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bush ministration has done so much damages on our fundamental science research and it will take decades for us to recover from that.


I doubt you can back that up with substantial fact, but if you can I'd like to see it. Stem cells are just a single issue, with legitimate ethical questions. Latest findings are that skin cells can be even more useful anyway.

Not to mention, on the other side of the ledger, Obama has said he would delay Constellation for 5 years. What that means in politician speak is that after 5 years of delay, he would raise the point that NASA's abilities and expertise would have so severely atrophied that Constellation should therefore be scrapped, with likely a total abandonment of manned space programs. This tactic is what Canadian government use to covertly destroy their military, and have been since Trudeau. Obama has just been taking notes, thats all.

Neither party is worthy of particular praise nor scorn when it comes to NASA; if anything, however, Bush did at least give us the VSE in wake of Columbia. If Congress has given NASA the funding it promised or not is another issue.


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 2:56:48 PM , Rating: 1
I hate Republicans with their blind support for Bush.

They take any criticism about him and spin it to make it seem like a positive.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 3
What'd I say that was factually incorrect?

I can also criticize Bush for many things, not least of which has been a total failure to reign in massive federal spending for example. I just pointed out that the VSE is one of the few good things to come out of his administration and that it was a bipartisan failure to provide NASA with funding and that going forward the other party has elements within it seeking the clear elimination of Orion, the only thing we've got going presently. If anything, that's a much more balanced view then the post I was responding to; I blamed everybody.

And then you reply pointing out your hate for Republicans, and then advance no logical argument of your own. Good job, thanks for reinforcing Republican stereotypes towards Democrats.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 3
Why not take advantage of what he said and create a factual reply for it?

Oh wait, let me guess....its the typical liberal hate of bush & republicans argument, all which come with no merit.

Ann Coulter said it best: "not only do you argue like a liberal, but you also throw like a girl".


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 3:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
It was an example of the other side endorsing a measure (placing Constellation on the shelf for 5 years, tantamount to cancellation by following the Canadian model of defense spending) that would hurt the advancement of science and technology, which is what he accused Bush of doing as if Bush were the only one that would ever do that.

Do I have to connect the dots with string for you?


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 3:42:24 PM , Rating: 1
But we aren't talking about sides. Or the "other" side at all. We have 1 President, and the guy was commenting on how HE has performed while in office. The other side has NOTHING to do with the conversation.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
Okay then. You still have failed to point out how anything I said about Bush was factually false. Good job, you managed to obfuscate and avoid the real argument for a couple posts.


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 4:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess my point was simply that most arguments, like yours, turn a criticism of this President into an attack on the Democrats or a praise of some other unrelated achievement.

Typical criticism:

Bush has failed horribly in Iraq.

Typical response:

There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since then.

----

The issue is the failure in Iraq! We(AMERICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS) want him accountable for that FAILURE.

It would be like me, showing up to work 30 minutes late every day and maybe missing certain meetings along the way. My supervisor confronts me and my response is: "well, I get back early from lunch every day and get 15 minutes extra work in at that time."

You think I'd still be working for that supervisor?


RE: Mars is a waste
By Spuke on 11/30/2007 5:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The issue is the failure in Iraq! We(AMERICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS) want him accountable for that FAILURE.
Why should only he be accountable for Iraq when most the politicians calling for his head gave him the power to go to war? They are ALL accountable and this WE wants everyone's head!!!!

I have to admit, the politicians have done an excellent job of convincing the sheeple that's it all Bush's fault. Bravo!!!


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well seeing as how Obama is running for President, he is being asked for his stance on current governmental policies.

So I guess I would ask you - why is it that you think a presidential candidate doesn't have anything to say about, or do, with a current presidential policy?

____

You may very well have...but not im sure you would have been able to make her out clearly in the clouds of imaginationland with all the global warming! Btw, Im not sure if it was Gandolf, or gay Dumbledore....


RE: Mars is a waste
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 4:32:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ann Coulter is a fruit cake.


Of all your rants, raves, completely untrue statements, this is the only one where I agree with you. She is a bit of a nut. I consider myself conservative, but I almost think even Karl Rove sometimes thinks "Damn that B*tch is CRAZY!".

That said, the Daily Show is a comedy show (damn funny at that), you shouldn't be taking it seriously.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Spuke on 11/30/2007 5:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, the Daily Show is a comedy show (damn funny at that), you shouldn't be taking it seriously.
The Daily Show is hilarious, one of my favorites.


RE: Mars is a waste
By DEVGRU on 11/30/2007 3:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
I hate Liberals with their blind hatred for Bush.

Is he the best President America has ever had? Hell no. Is he the worst President ever? Hell no.

If you want to blame anyone about anything, look at yourself first. Did you vote? Did you encourage others to vote?

If you didnt, sit down and STFU. If you did, guess what? The majority of America (obviously not soley those branding themselves 'Republican') thought Bush would be better than Kerry. Life sucks, get over it, and rock the vote in the next election.


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Blind? Want me to list all the things? There aren't enough terabytes in the world for that.

I am not a liberal, I am a rationalist.

And YES, my state did not vote for that dousche bag either time! I do not have $26.8 million dollars to give to the anti-Idiot campaign, so I am sorry if I have to go to work every day.

---

Explain to me how Clinton gets a BJ and lies about and gets impeached.

GW lies about WMD, terrorist connections, etc. etc. etc. about Iraq and is still in office? Even Nixon left office when he got caught. The spinsters really are due their credit.

---

But its ok, maybe Jesus will save us from the EVIL muslims....

Blind hatred for Bush!!! That's a good one. You'd have to be blind and deaf not to!


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 4:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't get impeached because he "gets a BJ and lies about" it, he got impeached because it was clear beyond all reasonable doubt he committed perjury under oath and obstruction of justice . That's not just a "lie".

If the evidence were so readily available for Bush, Pelosi would've gone for broke from the very start. I might've missed the memo about Pelosi being a secret agent of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, though.

Thanks for continuing to reinforce the aforementioned stereotypes about your type by avoiding answering my post. Go ahead and do it now, but you've showed more interest in trolling rather than the issue of NASA that was at hand, so I won't respond, you can get the last word.


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 4:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, he perjured about a BJ!! That is what men do. Why were the republicans so worried about the President's sex life to begin with!!! Oh wait, they needed to blackmark his successes in order to take back the White House. Maybe had OUR GOVERNMENT been investigating Terrorist threats before 9/11/2001, instead of attacking Clinton on his pardons, sex life, etc.... Maybe the New York skyline would look a little different.

I can't wait til Guiliani gets in there. He's gonna have the New York hoe train lined up in the Oval office.


RE: Mars is a waste
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why were the republicans so worried about the President's sex life to begin with!!! "

Did you sleep through the entire 1990s? Clinton was questioned under oath to establish a pattern of engaging in sexual conduct with his underlings, as part of a sexual harrassment suit. This was brought by a woman who, when Clinton was Governor, was brought to his hotel room by a state trooper, and whose job with the state was jeopardized as a result of refusing his sexual advances. Clinton lost that suit, after the plaintiff brought forth a long line of women who had been in similar circumstances with him.

To answer your question, that is why Clinton's "sex life" was brought up in a court of law.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
GW lies about WMD, terrorist connections, etc. etc. etc. about Iraq and is still in office?

For one, GW was not the first to make this claim. It was actually made by your democratic president Bill Clinton, most specifically in his presidential statement on 12/16/1998.

Why have the other two been impeached/resigned? See my answers below. Why hasn't Bush? Because no one in their "rational" minds can make any factual linkage that Bush actually lied about anything. In fact, much of what was said was known prior to him being elected as president - however Bill Clinton decided not to act on much of it, but rather make threats without the actual thought of military force to back it up. What is the point of telling your kids you'll ground them, if they see right through you and know you wont?

quote:
Explain to me how Clinton gets a BJ and lies about and gets impeached.

Bill Clinton did not get impeached because he lied about a BJ. Bill Clinton got impeached because he committed acts of perjury and obstruction of justice while in office as the President of the United States. Check the facts, and you'll see that he was voted guilty not by only the Republicans, but your Democrats as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_C...

quote:
Even Nixon left office when he got caught.

President Nixon resigned, but only because he would have been impeached due to the Watergate scandal.

quote:
I am not a liberal, I am a rationalist.

Rationalist's use facts to make educated decisions. This much I have not yet seen from you because you are posting rants & raves that have no merit, and arent even close to the truth.


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 1
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS.

Why do ALL Republicans say, "if you do not agree with me, you are a Democrat?" ??


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 5:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Where is the factual evidence that shows there were WMD's in Iraq at the time we attacked?

Bush said, and we can get the video from the Daily Show, "Saddam Hussein has WMD's and is intending to get more". This was in his State of the Union address. "He has them and INTENDS to use them against Americans." (not exact quote, I deleted the .pdf of the State of the Union a long time ago)

The U.N. inspectors were there before the attack and found nothing!!!!

How is it then, that after we get there, we still find NONE!!!!! Not even evidence that it ever existed!

So either A, he is a total moron for taking such a firm stance on such shaky evidence. Or B, he was exaggerating what he knew. This would be considered by most anyone to be lying.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Spuke on 11/30/2007 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So either A, he is a total moron for taking such a firm stance on such shaky evidence. Or B, he was exaggerating what he knew. This would be considered by most anyone to be lying.
Or C, he takes the information given to him by his advisor's (you really think these people make all those decisions by themselves and are using only their own personal research), made a decision, and voiced that collective decision to the American public.

To place the blame solely on one person here is naive. You also forgot Congress, which also knew this same information and GAVE the president (he can't declare war by himself...he has no authority) the authority to declare war.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 12/1/2007 6:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the authority to declare war


Sort of; we haven't been at war since we laid down the law in the 1940s. Congress gave authorization to kick ass. After 50 years though I think the distinction is small, but just pointing it out before someone trolls about it.


RE: Mars is a waste
By FITCamaro on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 4:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not a liberal, I am an idiot.
quote:
I fixed it for you.


I couldn't have said it any better myself.

not liberal = idiot

Good call.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Wightout on 11/30/2007 3:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the Democratic side of things do the same thing, but more to their own benefit?

Everyone does it... get with times man.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup...its call a political agenda. Spin every topic you can find into a structured way of making it meet your needs.


RE: Mars is a waste
By dickeywang on 12/3/2007 2:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
You certainly have no idea about how things works in academics. You can talk to anyone who's research funding is mainly from NASA(except those are working on the Mars mission) and they would tell you how difficult it was to get some funding in the last few years. Now, less fund means the professors won't have enough money to hire postdocs or graduate students, which means less people were working on fundamental sciences. The population of scientist in many areas are not like fuel in the car,which can be filled instantly as soon as you purchase it in a gas station. That's why I said "it would take decades to recover from that".
Don't even get me started on the alternative energy source things.


RE: Mars is a waste
By creathir on 11/30/2007 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

A moon base would be greatly more beneficial to our planet than a single mission to Mars, and would be the perfect platform for such a mission in the future.

As long as the free market was allowed to develop it, it could be quite successful, certainly would exceed what was promised with ISS.

My only concern with NASA's approach is that they are not building a reusable system. Some parts are, but they really need to focus on creating a fleet of reusable craft, at least if they ever want to get the costs down.

On that note, I find it laughable that they would actually suggest we pony up half a trillion dollars for a mission to Mars. I am all for spending money for research, especially if it is for the improvement of our lives, but that just seems steep to me.

- Creathir


RE: Mars is a waste
By sweetsauce on 11/30/2007 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with everything you wrote, which is pretty amazing. Only thing i find funny is the perspective. I look at the moon and beyond for the "exploration" not for the "exploitation." I still hold out hope that gene's vision of a future where humans give up monetary endevors and just try to better mankind will happen. Probably not in my lifetime but who knows. Before you label me a tree hugger, im not naive. I know money is a bigger motivation than curiosity, but i can still dream.


RE: Mars is a waste
By blaster5k on 11/30/2007 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
If you think about what money really is, it's a share of the total resources available to mankind. We can only do a finite number of things. When the economy grows, we can do more things. When productivity grows, we can do more with fewer people.

Going to Mars would consume a lot of our resources, which could be spent finding cures for diseases, building fancy cars and boats, or any number of other things. It's all about priorities. And I don't think most people are interested in curiosity and exploration if they have to give up other things -- perhaps somewhat unfortunate.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
You'll never hear about an election regarding the Federation. You'll never hear about Councilors being elected. You do, however, see preferential treatment and various forms of money made available to Captain's that have been good boys. The average joe, however, gets none of the above; limited political representation (I'm not aware of if local elections were ever suggested to exist or not), no money, no special treatment.

What was the Federation? What system does that sound like? Communism. Why did Benjamin Sisko's father go to work every day in his resteraunt? 'Cause it made him happy? Right. It'll never happen. People must have motivation and incentive to be productive, and the only incentive is profit. If it does come about, then just like how it went down in ST, and how actual human history suggests is necessary, it'll happen after billions are killed through one method or another.

But sure, you can dream. :P


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 3:29:36 PM , Rating: 1
Ok Nazi.

First of all, the show is about Starfleet bases and vessels. Starfleet is the ~military of the Star Trek universe. Of course there aren't elections, their is only rank and following orders in the military.

The Federation has a President and a council all of whom were elected. Most of the time during the shows, the President was not even a human, if ever.

----

Hopefully the greedy, self-righteous pricks who think living in a 10,000 square foot mansion is the only motivation in peoples lives die first... aka YOU.

Do you think Astronauts today do what they do for the money? Or anyone in the military? Last time I checked, the money is in the government contracts, not working for the government.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you think Astronauts today do what they do for the money? Or anyone in the military? Last time I checked, the money is in the government contracts, not working for the government.

You may want to go back to the drawing board and research the salaries of men and women in the military. They actually make much much more than the average salary in the US.

Now, do all people in the Military do what they do for the money? No, not all. Just as not all people work in their associated fields just for the money. But yes, there are people who join the military to make a quick buck because they dropped out of high school and realized they have no future outside of Burger Kind. Then some of them protest the war, and join your liberal anti-war movement by saying they dont agree with the war. Well, let me make it clear for you....it has nothing to do with if they agree with the war...its that they joined the military for the money, and now they have to start earning in a war. As sad as it sounds, its true and happens every day. But its not fair to judge the entire VOLUNTEER military, on these bad apples or "phony soldiers" like Jesse MacBeth.

And there is much much money to be made in working for the Government. But if you are referring to senators and congressmen...well guess what, they dont work for the money as they are already trust fund babies, or medical malpractice lawyers like John Edwards. They dont pay taxes, so thats why they could care less if you taxed the wealthy at 99%.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 4:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Most specifically, check out the pay scales for officer ranks!

I know a couple guys from high school who will, or maybe already are (fell out of touch), be active duty officers in the Air Force and Navy after allowing the military to pay their college expenses. Why? Lots of reasons, like you said mdogs, but if it weren't for the generous pay and the generous retirement benefits, there's no way in hell they'd be passing up the money they could make in the open market.

Oh, and BSMonitor, if you check the pay scales, don't forget that's only part of the story. There's all kinds of allowances and cost of living adjustments that get added on to the base salary rate.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 4:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Star Trek was all about bases and vessels, you entirely missed the point of every last Star Trek series. They were about social commentary and telling human stories, almost every episode.

As far as the elections go, you will not find a reference to these elections on screen, none that I'm aware of.

As for everything else:
http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2007/10/communism-...

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxis...

The Federation absolutely was, beyond all doubt, a Communist state. The second link indicates that it possibly wasn't during the TOS era; "Ahhh, memories ... when men were men, women wore miniskirts, and nobody drank synthehol." He thinks some fundamental revolution might've occured between TOS and TNG; I suppose thats a discontinuity, or perhaps social uniformity in Marxist doctrine hadn't fully been achieved yet.

Thanks again, by the way, for continuing to troll rather than construct logical arguments. I keep trying to draw one out of you, first on Bush now on Star Trek (my baby), but it's like pulling teeth :P


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 5:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
OMG.

You make extreme generalizations, and then attack my generalizations in response.

My god are you a lawyer?

I give up buddy, you ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!


RE: Mars is a waste
By BSMonitor on 11/30/2007 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say it was all about bases and vessels? No. Each show centered around a very select group of people in Starfleet. Yes, human stories, but human stories of military people or their family members. Not stories of human civilian families living on Earth or its colonies.

quote:
The election of Federation Council members was one of the tasks that Bajor would have to complete if it joined the Federation. (DS9: "Rapture")

Jonathan Archer served on the Federation council, representing Earth, from 2175 to 2183 before being elected Federation President in 2184. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II")


RE: Mars is a waste
By BruceLeet on 12/1/2007 6:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
10,000 square feet, sounds like a lobby.


RE: Mars is a waste
By 16nm on 11/30/2007 10:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that Mars is a waste. And what about all the money it is going to cost. It truly will be an absolute fortune - unless we can hire China to do it on the cheap. Of course, lead poisoning is a real possibility if we go that route. There's always a down side to doing deals with the devil. LOL


RE: Mars is a waste
By puckalicious on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Mars is a waste
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
> "but what happens to the moon's orbit if large quantities of earth mass are added to it "

The moon's mass ~= 73,477,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

Now, do you honestly think a even a few million extra tons are going to affect that in any measureable way?


RE: Mars is a waste
By cochy on 11/30/2007 1:36:05 PM , Rating: 3
Not too mention all those CO2 emissions from a Lunar base probably will result in the Lunar ice caps melting!


RE: Mars is a waste
By BruceLeet on 12/1/2007 6:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
First you need an Atmosphere, a dense one


RE: Mars is a waste
By FITCamaro on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 3:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
This kind of stuff is what really makes environmentalism a religion.

Other modern religions would have us believe we aren't entirely natural; god created us in his image, and we are therefore above the other creatures of the world to some extent.

These guys are simply the extreme end of the spectrum. We're not at all natural, we are a blight, and should seek to minimize the cost of our existence on the natural universe as much as possible, with the ultimate goal of apparently not existing at all.

It's amusing, too, that they believe in evolution. I do too, but evolution fundamentally means that we are slaves to what nature intended for us to do. Species are meant to expand and multiply. That's what we want to do with the Moon. But for them, since we've evolved but apparently arent natural and other species are therefore more important, we shouldn't be doing any of these things.

The final, ultimate indicator of if its a religious belief or not? Is it logical. I can't see any logic in it, but maybe I'm just not bright enough to see it.


RE: Mars is a waste
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:09:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Space exploration really just seems like man's next chapter in the raping & pillaging of the natural world (or solar system) without any regard to the consequences.

Sounds like we have another winner from the "Lets Make A Deal...(with a Democrat)" show. What does he win? A chance to be an environmental extremist and drink the complimentary cup of Kool-aid.


RE: Mars is a waste
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The moon is the key to commercial exploitation of space.


You need to cut out the word "exploitation" and change "commercial" to "commercialization" so that the hippies will buy into it.


RE: Mars is a waste
By imachip on 11/30/2007 1:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
While what you say is clearly correct from a scientific perspective, it's not a project that will captivate the planet. While you say a landing on another planet, is a 'trip to Mars', for most people that's far more exciting than landing on the moon again and slowly building a base (ISS isn't exactly thrilling and it takes a long time to complete).
So maybe I'm selfish but I'm looking forward to the mission and watching with the rest of the world as another brave soul takes another giant leap for mankind.


RE: Mars is a waste
By MC17 on 11/30/2007 1:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, masher2, but I must to disagree. You see, a man by the name of Stephen Hawkings, who's nearly as smart as you and a bit more familiar with the subject matter, believes it is imperative that we establish a permanent base on Mars in the next 40 years.
http://www.space.com/news/060613_ap_hawking_space....
The Moon is a good starting point, but a base their is entirely unsustainable, so Mars should be our primary focus. And commercially viable railguns in the decade or so? Let's leave the science fiction to the professionals.


RE: Mars is a waste
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 2:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You see, a man by the name of Stephen Hawkings, who's nearly as smart as you and a bit more familiar with the subject matter
Oops...had you read your own link, you'd see that Hawking and I are in perfect agreement. Hawking himself realizes that a permanent moonbase should precede a Martian colony, and furthermore that a simple temporary visit to Mars accomplishes almost nothing.


RE: Mars is a waste
By MC17 on 11/30/2007 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Again, masher2, I'll have to disagree. NASA's time-line for the Mars mission places the earliest LANDING at 2031. Hawking calls for a COLONY by about 2046, meaning that a first landing much after 2036 wouldn't leave much time for colonization.
I should admit, though, that the Moon is an important first step; however, given that other countries are already planning such a Moon-base, duplicity in this case seems unnecessary. NASA, with its unparalleled expertise in actual landings, should focus on the more difficult task of Mars exploitation.


RE: Mars is a waste
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, there's nothing to exploit on Mars that can't really be exploited on the Moon at far lower cost.

Hawking can afford to make an ideological stand, but the rest of the world has to deal with budgetary constraints, technological ones, biological ones, and if we want to have a truly permanent human presence off world that is isolated from the vicissitudes of the political class, we must also abide by economic constraints so that companies will fill the void if government retreats.

I also don't understand the duplicity issue. St. Augustine has been a city in Florida far longer than any other. Why do we have Miami? Orlando? Tampa? Jacksonville? We have other towns and cities for the same reasons it wont hurt to have multiple colonies on the Moon. It might duplicate resources, I guess, in things that could be easily shared and benefit from economies of scale, like life support equipment, but there's no downside to multiple colonies, especially if corporations display interest in different locations.


RE: Mars is a waste
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 3:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hawking calls for a COLONY by about 2046..."

Hawking says we should have a moon colony in 20 years, and a Martian colony in 40. I say we should first create a moon colony before attempting manned trips to Mars.

Now...how exactly again do you believe our opinions differ?

>" given that other countries are already planning such a Moon-base, duplicity in this case seems unnecessary"

You're missing both the primary points here. First, NASA isn't suggesting a permanent Martian colony, merely a showy one-time trip...walk around, plant a flag, collect a few rocks and dust sample, then return home to a ticker tape parade. Nothing that really furthers man's permanent presence in space.

But more importantly, NASA intends to stage this mission from the Earth, rather than a Lunar base. That increases the cost dramatically. Many experts have pointed out that a moon base can entirely pay for itself just in the cost savings of 1-2 Mars missions, due to the lower lifting costs required. Getting out the Earth's steep gravity well and pesky thick atmospher is very expensive. Launching from Luna is trivial by comparison.


RE: Mars is a waste
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/30/2007 6:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
Let's also not forget that while Steve Hawking has had some interesting thoughts on theoretical physics, he actually does not do nearly the same amount of heavy lifting as Michio Kaku or Jacob Bekenstein.

Hawking's infamous "oops" with regard to information traversing an event horizon is an example of putting just a little too much faith in one opinion, whether it be Hawking or Masher or whoever.

quote:
And commercially viable railguns in the decade or so?

The use of railguns for space cargo is nothing new -- even Jules Verne conceptualized using canons to shoot machines into space. Last week BAE announced a 32MW rail gun (64MW is by definition of U.S. forces, "weapons grade").

No matter how you do the math, we'll be shooting satellites into and out of the sky by 2017 easily.


RE: Mars is a waste
By UsernameX on 11/30/2007 9:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A moon base is the first step towards exploitation and colonization of the entire solar system. A trip to Mars is just...a trip to Mars.


20 billion to 450 billion dollars to make a trip to mars from earth?

A moon base is seriously needed. However! This is planned for 2030ish. I would seriously hope NASA has plans to build a moon base before this trip to Mars.


RE: Mars is a waste
By NT78stonewobble on 12/1/2007 5:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree though I really want mankind to go to mars.

I think that the basic infrastructure needs to more developed first.

With better earth to orbit options, and a bigger more practical construction like orbital facilities. Additionally the moon base you talk about.

I'm thinking that the reasoning for going to mars asap is to generate some public interest for space again but in this day and age the bottom line matters too much for this to happen.

Sadly


cool.... but.
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 10:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
They're thinking out loud. I appreciate that we have smart people who can think ahead and see what basic necessities will arise... but there are quite a few expensive steps and a lot of potential pitfalls before a human lands on Mars.

I think their plan should be something like this:
1.) List what we need
---- new medical tech
---- etc
2.) Plan to develop what is needed (goals)
---- specific technology created by date X
---- specific funding needed to create tech by date X
3.) Plan to utilize the developments on an unmanned mission
---- dry run without humans
---- prove the plan works
4.) Create necessary improvements (discovered in step 3)
5.) Enact plan

Without sufficient funding committed (guaranteed) by the taxpayers each step is subject to failure due to politics.

Let's face it, we know it would cost a TON of money. So we should stop debating that and just spend it (for pete's sake!) Give NASA a blank check and let it go. If we can spend on other useless things (subjective) then we can spend it on space.




RE: cool.... but.
By Hellfire27 on 11/30/2007 10:46:42 AM , Rating: 5
I say we should cut all funding for social welfare programs and divert that money to NASA's coffers. Space exploration should at least be in the United State's top five priorities. Which is why I won't vote for Mr. Obama; he wants to cut NASA's funding to pay for more education spending. I'm all for education, but take the money from some where else and not from one the of most innovative, pioneering agencies we have.


RE: cool.... but.
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 11:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
that'll never fly.

Committees reduce all action to the lowest, dumbest possible. The fact is, Americans are too busy trying to get a free handout to allow any real budgeting for crazy stuff like science. Why do cool, groundbreaking, and scientific stuff when we can beg for freebies from our elected whore?

Oh. Do I sound cynical? nah... not me.


RE: cool.... but.
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 3
mod it down.... but it's true :)

if we can spend billions on a war, then we can spend 1 or 2 Billion on spaceflight... ditto with education, welfare, etc.

The problem is that our "representatives" don't get any political gain from scientific advancement so there is no incentive to put any weight behind the effort.


RE: cool.... but.
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 1:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
I like it how your post gets modded down but the one you're replying to is rated up. But yes you're right.

quote:
ditto with education, welfare, etc.


I'd rather nothing be spent on welfare. The only people who deserve government assistance in my mind are those who absolutely cannot work. Mercedes the 22-year-old single mom with 3 kids, ages 7, 5, and 3, deserves nothing. If you're going to be stupid enough to get knocked up at 15, you get to live with the consequences.


RE: cool.... but.
By jnmfox on 11/30/2007 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
So Mercedes's three kids should have no real chance in life because of the bad decisions made by their mother? If we provide them with no help the kids would be more likely to become "social misfits" like their mom. We would just be perpetuating the problem.

You are punishing the innocent for someone else mistake.


RE: cool.... but.
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 2:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
No you aren't. You are giving the mother welfare checks, i.e money. There is no telling that the kids are actually receiving the money. And then there is no incentive or motivation to work herself out of the hole....therefore since you dont want her kids to be social misfits, that means the taxpayers should raise her kids, all while the taxpayers are living paycheck to paycheck trying to raise their own?

Again, redistribution of wealth has no place here.

You probably use this logic for supporting illegal immigrants kids in our school systems. Not only the parents, but the kids as well should be deported back to their home country. School want levies to increase the taxes that citizens pay...well maybe if we didnt have these illegals in our schools - the class sizes would be smaller, and more attention would be paid to each individual child who is a citizen and has a right to be at that school.


RE: cool.... but.
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 2:59:05 PM , Rating: 1
Since when does not getting government assistance mean they don't get to go to school same as every other kid? My point is that we should not be rewarding that kind of behavior. As long as that type of assistance exists, people will be irresponsible. Take it away, and they might think twice before having sex at 15 without a condom. And even with the money, it's likely her kids will grow up to not make anything of themselves since she'll likely spend it on herself.

The point is we have people in America who are just popping out babies and not working because the more kids you have, the more money you get from the government. Then they just live off that money.


RE: cool.... but.
By jnmfox on 11/30/2007 3:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
mdogs-
You are assuming that the mother won’t use the money to help her situation. I’m sure there are many do and many who don’t. But if we don’t try to help those in need we will perpetuate the problem, creating more misfits for society to support, causing a greater strain on the taxpayers.

Illegal immigrants- again you assume too much. I never said anything about supporting families who are here illegally. We are talking about American children born into an unfortunate situation.

FITCamaro-
Just because the kids go to the same public school as everyone else doesn’t mean they will have the same chance in life. What about their home life? There is much more to creating an individual that will have a positive effect on society then what school they go to.

I completely agree that we should not reward that type of behavior. But do you really think that a 15 year old in that situation is going to be thinking about how much welfare they may or may not get? I’m sure other things are on their minds.

Should we just throw them and their children out on the street because they made one big mistake? Where do we draw the line? What about single moms (or dads) who are in the situation because of unfortunate circumstances, death, abuse, etc.?

You can’t just say we should take their welfare away because they made a mistake or because they will misuse it. Welfare and the care of our needy is too complex of an issue to just throw out a blanket statement.


RE: cool.... but.
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Whats wrong with the proposal that was in office a while back to say that we will only give welfare to a family/person for 1 year...after that 1 year is up, they are on there own, and they cannot even apply for welfare for another 3 years.

That pretty much lights a fire under their ass to say "you have 365 days to get your shit together, if not you will be on the street".

Also, why do we just send them a welfare check? Why not give them a job that can take the place of some of these social services that we're forced to pay for? Make them work border patrol, make them pick up trash on the freeways, make them paint public buildings each summer, etc.


RE: cool.... but.
By jnmfox on 11/30/2007 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I thinks those are all great ideas.

I never said I thought the current system works. I was saying taking away financial support of the needy is more likely to cause more problems in the long run than solve.

A reform to a more efficient and effective support system is something that deserves more time, attention, and effort then it currently receives.


RE: cool.... but.
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
You can argue that it deserves more attention than it gets....but in all honest, tax paying citizens deserve more attention than those who are a strain on our tax dollars and a strain on our tax paying citizens: aka welfare recipients, illegal immigrants


RE: cool.... but.
By FITCamaro on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool.... but.
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 5:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meaning if you're a fat@ss who's 600 pounds because you eat 5 big macs a day, you don't qualify.

Technically, that is still a fault of their own, no? Could have considered a diet 300 lbs ago. I vote that we do not offer him a welfare check, but rather a years supply of Healthy Choice meals and a gym membership. That would be a true social service that should show results.


RE: cool.... but.
By FITCamaro on 12/1/2007 12:43:47 AM , Rating: 1
Healthy Choice meals don't do shit when they eat them 5 at a time.

I say we lock him in a gym with nothing but Gatorade and rice cakes for a few weeks. If he eats all the rice cakes on the first day, he starves.


RE: cool.... but.
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 11/30/2007 3:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, the trillions we have spent on social welfare has really paid off.

Poverty and drug use are at all time lows... without the social welfare system we would have cities full of drug dealers, homless people living under bridges, crack hos with webcams eating poo poo on the internet....


RE: cool.... but.
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 3:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
So I guess essentially what we agree on....is that social welfare is comprable to watching "2 girls 1 cup" haha.


RE: cool.... but.
By Hellfire27 on 11/30/2007 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
When this planet turns into a smoldering pile of garbage everyone will be looking at NASA (or foreign equivalents) to get us off this rock. Granted this is distant future but why not get a head start? Man's destiny is in space.


RE: cool.... but.
By Chaser on 11/30/2007 11:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
Although I don't support Obama's views (but if it came down to him or Billary I believe Obama is at least sincere about the position and cares beyond trying to achieve Emperorhood) I often wonder sometimes about all the public money that gets funnelled into NASA. Has the investment benefited people of the U.S. to substanciate the cost? I do value the notion of the U.S. being "the world leader in space exploration" and in the 60s and 70s that was great but I'm beginning to wonder what's in it for the average Joe beyond. I was in the Navy for several years. These NASA people lived a pretty privleged life as a rubber stamped commissioned senior officer and their own government funded trainer jets to hop around in from coast to coast.

I'm not saying the space program is a waste I just wish the general public would be told more in laymen's terms how all this money is specifically benefiting everyone. I watch the news and I read about another shuttle launch and the intensity behind a possible tile being cracked or damaged but I don't really know why they are even going up there that is resulting in a lasting, meaningful, credible benefit to everyone. Beyond a pilot trying to make him or herself a hero for their own history books.


RE: cool.... but.
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 1:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not saying the space program is a waste I just wish the general public would be told more in laymen's terms how all this money is specifically benefiting everyone.


Plastics, synthetic fibers, solar power, packaged foods, do I need to continue?

And not all people who work for NASA live that life. I worked out at KSC for a summer in college. It was the same as any other corporate environment. Cubicles and coffee makers.


Missed Edits
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2007 11:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
Title: Change to “NASA has its sites set on Mars”

Second Paragraph: Change “weights” to “weighs”
Second Paragraph: Recast “funding a project” to “funds for such a project” or similar.

Third Paragraph: Recast “The crew would also eat plants that are growing on …” to “The crew would also eat plants that would be growing on…” or similar.

Fourth Paragraph: How many of one type will they be sending, 1, 000, or 1 of each? Perhaps “…one of each type…”

Fifth Paragraph: NASA is not a nation. Recast “Even though the US and other nations…”
Fifth Paragraph: Otherwise very awkward turns of phrase. What is “medical space equipment,” for example?

Sixth Paragraph: What is a “space nation?”
Sixth Paragraph: I lost some hair to the rest of that first clause.
Sixth Paragraph: Recast “NASA already is…” to “NASA is already…” or “currently.”
Sixth Paragraph: Last sentence… oops, all my hair is gone. “a number of research projects on Mars including the impressive Mars Rovers?”

Yikes. The editing on this site is notoriously bad. I think we should all help the writers here by helping them with edits.

You may point out flaws in my grammar as well, but I am only posting here. I don’t make my living writing content for this web site.




RE: Missed Edits
By MangoSRT8 on 11/30/2007 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to guess that the writers for DailyTech have no formal schooling in journalism.


RE: Missed Edits
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, we get paid by the comment, so planting a few innoculous errors in each article is an easy way to make a little extra cash for the Holidays.


RE: Missed Edits
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/30/2007 2:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Lovely, innoculous. How much did that earn you? =)


RE: Missed Edits
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2007 3:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on whether or not you reply to this one.


RE: Missed Edits
By Ringold on 11/30/2007 4:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Here's my contribution to placing milk on your children’s table and pharmaceuticals in your mothers cabinet.

Merry Christmas! :D


RE: Missed Edits
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 11/30/2007 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
in my country thats called 'washing the watermellon's shoes.'

dunno why


Insanity
By androticus on 11/30/2007 8:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is a criminally insane waste of money.

I invite all the people who want to see someone go to Mars to form a club, save their money, and invest themselves.

Meanwhile, stop funding your pet project from our hard-earned money. EVERYONE has some kind of pet project they'd like to see funded. And everyone with these collectively-funded projects always has some lame-ass justification for why the rest of us should be robbed to pay for it. My favorite is "The reason we need to take this money by force is because no one would voluntarily fork over this many billions." Well... DUH!!!

They always blather on about how we are so stupid that we can't see how much this benefits us really, so they are doing us a favor by stealing our money -- we are so stupid that we can't see the real benefit to us, and should welcome the parasites who are helping us to receive the munificent benefits of this massive public works project.

I have a better idea: a society in which all of us "stupid" people get to keep all our money and live in ignorant bliss of all the "benefits" we are foregoing, and then an unfulfilled class of looters who get to live utterly frustrated lives, unable to loot from others, unable to force their agendas of intrinsicist-driven values upon us.




RE: Insanity
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the NASA space program is not a waste of money. In fact, NASA is responsible for so many of the technological progresses and inventions in the world, it was actually written in a document that NASA has actually made the country 400% more money than what has gone into it.

I'll have to find that document again, it was very interesting.

However, you seem like a very bitter person and that the world owes you something for just existing, so not sure anyone can tell you anything that would you bring you back to reality.


RE: Insanity
By mdogs444 on 11/30/2007 9:14:44 PM